TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), who had deleted the penalty levied for Rs. 9,62,094/- under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jewellery, filed its return of income on 30.09.2008 admitting its income as Rs. 74,55,303/-pursuant to survey conducted U/s.133A in the business premises of the assessee on 28.02.2008. During the course of survey, it was found that the assessee had excess stock of 549/657 gms of gold, 2,75,223.140 gms of silver and 5.430 Carats of Diamond and the assessee firm had agreed to offer the same as excess stock valued at Rs. 5,03,00,072/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee to evade tax, came to light due to conduct of survey U/s.133A of the Income Tax Act by the Department. The total value of the difference in stock offered for assessment is Rs. 5,03,00,072/-. As the net profit admitted by the assessee is 6.19% as per audit Report filed in Form 3CD, concealed income of the assessee is calculated at Rs. 31,13,574/-. Hence, the tax to be evaded including education cess works out to Rs. 9,62,094/-. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case , I hold that this is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly penalty of Rs. 9,62,094/-(Rupees nine lakhs sixty two thousand and ninety four only) is levied U/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of the case. Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad 'C' Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Dr.Satish B Gupta reported in (2011) 135 ITR 0611 held that the duty to disclose the particulars of income arises at the time when the assessee furnished the return of income U/s.139 of the IT Act and if in filing his return he conceals the particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the return of income. In the case of Patna guinea House & Others Vs. Ld. CIT (2000) 161 CTR (PAT 536); (2000) 243 ITR 274(Pat) it is held that there is no case for levy of penalty if income is disclosed in the return of income but assessee has refused to disclose the source of income. In CIT Vs. S K G arthanariswamy Chettiar (1980) 19 CTR (Mad.) 240; (1980) 136 ITR 145(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied and considered while arriving at the income for the relevant assessment year and the same was included in the return of income. It was therefore submitted that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income in the return of income filed before the Revenue. Hence it was prayed that the penalty levied by the Revenue may be deleted. Ld. D.R on the other hand argued in support of the orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the assessee has not concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income filed before the Revenue. The excess stock found at t....